Affiliations
Center for Quality, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
Given name(s)
Trevor C.
Family name
Yuen
Degrees
MS

Electronic Assessment of Mental Status

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/02/2017 - 19:34
Display Headline
Testing the functional assessment of mentation: A mobile application based assessment of mental status

Altered mental status (AMS) is a complex spectrum of cognitive deficits that includes orientation, memory, language, visuospatial ability, and perception.[1] The clinical definitions of both delirium and dementia include AMS as a hallmark clinical prerequisite. Regardless of etiology, this broader AMS definition is particularly salient in the hospital setting, where AMS is present in up to 60% of inpatients and is associated with longer hospital stay as well as increased morbidity and mortality.[2, 3] Not surprisingly, due to the complexity of identifying and assessing changes in mental status, clinically relevant AMS is often undetected among inpatients.[2] However, when detected, the most common causes of AMS (infection, polypharmacy, and pain) are treatable, suggesting that early AMS identification could alert clinicians to early signs of clinical decompensation, potentially improving clinical outcomes.[4]

Because rapid and systemic clinical detection of AMS is limited by the complexity of mental status, a number of assessments have been created, each with their own advantages, limitations, and target populations. These assessments are often limited by time‐intensive administration, subjectivity of mental status assessment, and lack of sensitivity in general medicine patients. Time‐intensive measures, such as the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) have utility in the research setting, whereas current common clinical risk stratification tools (eg, National Early Warning Score) utilize simpler measures such as the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive (AVPU) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as measures of mental status.[2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

To address the need for a brief, clinically feasible, accurate tool in clinical detection of AMS, our group developed a mobile application for working memory testing, the Functional Assessment of Mentation (FAMTM). In this study, we aimed to identify baseline scoring distributions of the FAMTM in a nonhospitalized subgroup, as well as assess the correlation of the FAMTM to discharge disposition and compare it to the SPMSQ in inpatients.

METHODS

Study Design

We conducted a prospective observational study. Data were collected from both hospitalized and nonhospitalized adult participants as 2 distinct subgroups. Nonhospitalized adult subjects were recruited from a university medical campus (June 2013July 2013; IRB‐12‐0175). Hospitalized participants were recruited from the general medicine service as part of an ongoing study measuring quality of care and resource allocation at the same academic medical center (June 2014August 2014; IRB‐9967).[10]

FAMTM Application

The FAMTM application is a bedside tool for working memory assessment developed for the iPhone mobile operating system (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) and presented on an iPad mini (Apple). The application interface displays 4 colored rectangles individually labeled with a number (see Supporting Figure 1 in the online version of this article). The testing portion of the application presents a sequence of numbered rectangles, illuminated 1 at a time in random order. Subjects are prompted first to watch and remember the sequence and then repeat the sequence by touching the screen within each numbered rectangle. Successful reproduction of the sequence is followed by a distinct and longer sequence, whereas unsuccessful attempts are followed by a shorter sequence. The final FAMTM score corresponds to the longest sequence of rectangles successfully repeated by the subject.

Figure 1
FAMTM vs GCS by SPMSQ score. Box plot of FAMTM (light grey boxes) and GCS scores (dark grey boxes). Median, and 25th and 75th quartile results are demonstrated by vertical lines within in the box, and range is shown by the whiskers. One subject was excluded from analysis due to lack of a GCS score in the medical record. Abbreviations: FAMTM, Functional Assessment of Mentation; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire.

Data Collection

In the nonhospitalized subject population, research assistants collected demographic data immediately prior to FAMTM administration. Among hospitalized subjects, GCS information was collected by nursing staff as part of standard clinical care. One research assistant administered the SPMSQ while a second assistant, blinded to the SPMSQ and GCS scores, administered the FAMTM. Clinical data were obtained from medical records (EPIC Systems Corp., Verona, WI). Discharge disposition was dichotomized as discharged home or not.

Statistical Analyses

Demographic characteristics of the 2 subject populations were compared using Student t tests (continuous variables) and 2 tests (categorical variables). Score distribution and discharge disposition comparison was conducted with the Mann‐Whitney U test and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis, using the trapezoidal rule.[11] Multivariable linear regression was used to investigate the impact of age, race, education, discharge disposition, and hospitalization status on patient scores and times. Correlations between the FAMTM and SPMSQ scores and between the GCS and SPMSQ scores were calculated using the Spearman rank test. Significance was set at a 2‐sided P value of <0.05. Analyses were conducted using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

A total of 931 subjects were enrolled in the study. In the nonhospitalized subgroup, 651 consented to study participation and 612 were included in final analysis. Subjects were excluded if they started but did not complete the application (n = 36) or were under the age of 18 years (n = 3). Of the 363 hospitalized subjects approached for enrollment, 319 were included in the final analysis. Subjects were excluded if they refused to participate (n = 23), were under the age of 18 (n = 2), had technical failures (n = 5), or had physical or visual limitations that precluded them from participation (n = 14). Within the hospitalized subgroup, 268 subjects were discharged home (85%). The table displays demographics and score distributions by subgroup.1

Demographics and FAMTM Score Distribution by Hospitalization Category
Nonhospitalized Subjects, n = 612 Hospitalized Subjects Discharged Home, n = 268 Hospitalized Subjects Discharged Elsewhere, n = 48 P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: FAMTM, Functional Assessment of Mentation; IQR, interquartile range. Three hospitalized subjects were excluded from analysis due to being discharged against medical advice. FAMTM score comparisons were significant for all stepwise comparisons using P < 0.05.

Age, y 52 18 52 19 62 17 <0.001
Female sex 343 (56%) 158 (59%) 26 (54%) 0.63
Education <0.001
Less than high school graduate 31 (5%) 32 (12%) 7 (15%)
High school graduate 312 (51%) 153 (57%) 26 (54%)
College graduate 263 (43%) 43 (16%) 8 (17%)
Missing 6 (1%) 40 (15%) 7 (15%)
Race <0.001
Black 196 (32%) 185 (69%) 34 (71%)
White 324 (53%) 75 (28%) 13 (27%)
Other 86 (14%) 4 (1%) 4 (1%)
Missing 6 (1%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%)
FAMTM score, median (IQR) 5 (47) 5 (36) 3 (15) <0.001

The median FAMTM score for the combined study population was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 36), and median time to completion was 55 seconds (IQR 4567 seconds). A graded reduction was found in the FAMTM score for all stepwise comparisons between nonhospitalized subjects, hospitalized subjects discharged home, and hospitalized subjects not discharged home (median 5 [IQR 47] vs 5 [IQR 36] vs 3 [IQR 15]; P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). The AUC for the FAMTM predicting discharge disposition (home vs not) was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58‐0.74]. After adjusting for confounders, higher FAMTM scores were independently associated with not being hospitalized, being discharged home, higher levels of education, younger age, and white race (see Supporting Table 1 in the online version of this article). Additionally, in the hospitalized subgroup, decreasing FAMTM score was significantly correlated with increasing errors on the SPMSQ (Spearman = 0.27, P < 0.001), whereas the GCS score was not correlated with the SPMSQ (Spearman = 0.05, P = 0.40) (Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated the utility of a rapid and accurate mobile application for assessment of mental status. The FAMTM was able to be quickly administered with a median time to completion of approximately 1 minute. The ability to detect mild alterations in mental status was shown through concurrent validity by FAMTM correlation with the SPMSQ and predictive validity with the association between the FAMTM and discharge disposition. Our study highlights the potential for the FAMTM to be used as a sensitive marker of AMS.

The novel design of the FAMTM presents unique advantages compared to current mental status testing. First, the FAMTM could allow patients with hearing impairment or language barriers to complete a mental status assessment. Additionally, the approximately 1‐minute median time to completion is much faster than other established mental status assessments including the SPMSQ (510 minutes). Compared to the SPMSQ taking 5 minutes, in a 400‐bed hospital, taken once per nursing shift, the FAMTM would save approximately 20,000 hours and 10 nursing full‐time equivalents per year.[5] Finally, many current mental status tests such as the Confusion Assessment Model utilize subjective mental status assessments.[2] However, the FAMTM is designed to be conducted through self‐assessment and, thus, could theoretically be free of observer bias. This potential for self‐administration expands beyond other proposed alternative testing mechanisms of the AMS such as ultrabrief assessments that include items such as asking subjects the months of the year backwards, and what is the day of the week?, and assessing arousal.[12, 13, 14]

In research settings and commonly in hospitals, the GCS and AVPU are used clinically for mental status assessment of hospitalized patients.[6, 15] However, similar to previous literature, our study found that the vast majority of hospitalized patients were defined as neurologically intact by the GCS, which is the more accurate predictor of the 2.[7] One major strength of the FAMTM was that it identified an extensive gradation of scores for patients previously labeled as merely alert, providing greater resolution than the GCS in quantifying mental status.

One of the key benefits of the FAMTM is that it can be measured longitudinally over the course of a patient's hospital stay. Therefore, once a baseline FAMTM score is established, variation from the patient's personal baseline could indicate mental status deterioration, which would not be affected by the patient's demographics, health status, or underlying neurocognitive deficits.

There were important limitations to this study. First, limited generalizability of these data may exist due to the single‐center setting and patient population. However, this initial study provides pilot data for further expansion into the potential broad applicability of the FAMTM to other patient populations and settings. Additionally, the cost of large‐scale implementation of the FAMTM is unknown and was beyond the scope of this pilot study. However, to reduce costs, the FAMTM technology could be integrated into existing hospital technology infrastructure. Finally, the scope of this study prevented a complete assessment of all validity measures or comparison to other mental status assessments such as the digit span or serial sevens tests. However, predictive and concurrent validity were assessed with comparison by discharge disposition, SPMSQ, and GCS scores.

In conclusion, this pilot study identifies the FAMTM application as a potentially clinically useful, novel, rapid, and feasible assessment tool of mental status in a general medicine inpatient setting.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Frank Zadravecz, MPH, for his support with this project.

Disclosures: This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIA 2T35AG029795‐07) and in part by career development awards granted to Dr. Churpek, Dr. Edelson, and Dr. Press by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08 HL121080, K23 HL097157, and K23 HL118151, respectively). Dr. Churpek has received honoraria from Chest for invited speaking engagements. Drs. Churpek and Edelson have a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. In addition, Dr. Edelson has received research support from Philips Healthcare (Andover, MA), the American Heart Association (Dallas, TX), and Laerdal Medical (Stavanger, Norway). She has ownership interest in Quant HC (Chicago, IL), which is developing products for risk stratification of hospitalized patients. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

Files
References
  1. Han JH, Wilber ST. Altered mental status in older patients in the emergency department. Clin Geriatr Med. 2013;29(1):101136.
  2. Inouye SK, Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941948.
  3. Buist M, Bernard S, Nguyen TV, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in‐hospital mortality: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137141.
  4. Schuurmans MJ, Duursma SA, Shortridge‐Baggett LM. Early recognition of delirium: review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2001;10(6):721729.
  5. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433441.
  6. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Meredith P, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death. Resuscitation. 2013;84(4):465470.
  7. Zadravecz FJ, Tien L, Robertson‐Dick BJ, et al. Comparison of mental‐status scales for predicting mortality on the general wards. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):658663.
  8. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;304(7872):8184.
  9. Erkinjuntti T, Sulkava R, Wikström J, Autio L. Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire as a Screening Test for Dementia and Delirium Among the Elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987;35(5):412416.
  10. Meltzer D, Manning W, Morrison J, et al. Effects of physician experience on costs and outcomes on an academic general medicine service: results of a trial of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):866874.
  11. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke‐Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837845.
  12. Fick DM, Inouye SK, Guess J, et al. Preliminary development of an ultrabrief two‐item bedside test for delirium. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):645650.
  13. Yevchak AM, Doherty K, Archambault EG, Kelly B, Fonda JR, Rudolph JL. The association between an ultrabrief cognitive screening in older adults and hospital outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):651657.
  14. Yang FM, Jones RN, Inouye SK, et al. Selecting optimal screening items for delirium: an application of item response theory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:8.
  15. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18(4):379384.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Publications
Page Number
463-466
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Altered mental status (AMS) is a complex spectrum of cognitive deficits that includes orientation, memory, language, visuospatial ability, and perception.[1] The clinical definitions of both delirium and dementia include AMS as a hallmark clinical prerequisite. Regardless of etiology, this broader AMS definition is particularly salient in the hospital setting, where AMS is present in up to 60% of inpatients and is associated with longer hospital stay as well as increased morbidity and mortality.[2, 3] Not surprisingly, due to the complexity of identifying and assessing changes in mental status, clinically relevant AMS is often undetected among inpatients.[2] However, when detected, the most common causes of AMS (infection, polypharmacy, and pain) are treatable, suggesting that early AMS identification could alert clinicians to early signs of clinical decompensation, potentially improving clinical outcomes.[4]

Because rapid and systemic clinical detection of AMS is limited by the complexity of mental status, a number of assessments have been created, each with their own advantages, limitations, and target populations. These assessments are often limited by time‐intensive administration, subjectivity of mental status assessment, and lack of sensitivity in general medicine patients. Time‐intensive measures, such as the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) have utility in the research setting, whereas current common clinical risk stratification tools (eg, National Early Warning Score) utilize simpler measures such as the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive (AVPU) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as measures of mental status.[2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

To address the need for a brief, clinically feasible, accurate tool in clinical detection of AMS, our group developed a mobile application for working memory testing, the Functional Assessment of Mentation (FAMTM). In this study, we aimed to identify baseline scoring distributions of the FAMTM in a nonhospitalized subgroup, as well as assess the correlation of the FAMTM to discharge disposition and compare it to the SPMSQ in inpatients.

METHODS

Study Design

We conducted a prospective observational study. Data were collected from both hospitalized and nonhospitalized adult participants as 2 distinct subgroups. Nonhospitalized adult subjects were recruited from a university medical campus (June 2013July 2013; IRB‐12‐0175). Hospitalized participants were recruited from the general medicine service as part of an ongoing study measuring quality of care and resource allocation at the same academic medical center (June 2014August 2014; IRB‐9967).[10]

FAMTM Application

The FAMTM application is a bedside tool for working memory assessment developed for the iPhone mobile operating system (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) and presented on an iPad mini (Apple). The application interface displays 4 colored rectangles individually labeled with a number (see Supporting Figure 1 in the online version of this article). The testing portion of the application presents a sequence of numbered rectangles, illuminated 1 at a time in random order. Subjects are prompted first to watch and remember the sequence and then repeat the sequence by touching the screen within each numbered rectangle. Successful reproduction of the sequence is followed by a distinct and longer sequence, whereas unsuccessful attempts are followed by a shorter sequence. The final FAMTM score corresponds to the longest sequence of rectangles successfully repeated by the subject.

Figure 1
FAMTM vs GCS by SPMSQ score. Box plot of FAMTM (light grey boxes) and GCS scores (dark grey boxes). Median, and 25th and 75th quartile results are demonstrated by vertical lines within in the box, and range is shown by the whiskers. One subject was excluded from analysis due to lack of a GCS score in the medical record. Abbreviations: FAMTM, Functional Assessment of Mentation; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire.

Data Collection

In the nonhospitalized subject population, research assistants collected demographic data immediately prior to FAMTM administration. Among hospitalized subjects, GCS information was collected by nursing staff as part of standard clinical care. One research assistant administered the SPMSQ while a second assistant, blinded to the SPMSQ and GCS scores, administered the FAMTM. Clinical data were obtained from medical records (EPIC Systems Corp., Verona, WI). Discharge disposition was dichotomized as discharged home or not.

Statistical Analyses

Demographic characteristics of the 2 subject populations were compared using Student t tests (continuous variables) and 2 tests (categorical variables). Score distribution and discharge disposition comparison was conducted with the Mann‐Whitney U test and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis, using the trapezoidal rule.[11] Multivariable linear regression was used to investigate the impact of age, race, education, discharge disposition, and hospitalization status on patient scores and times. Correlations between the FAMTM and SPMSQ scores and between the GCS and SPMSQ scores were calculated using the Spearman rank test. Significance was set at a 2‐sided P value of <0.05. Analyses were conducted using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

A total of 931 subjects were enrolled in the study. In the nonhospitalized subgroup, 651 consented to study participation and 612 were included in final analysis. Subjects were excluded if they started but did not complete the application (n = 36) or were under the age of 18 years (n = 3). Of the 363 hospitalized subjects approached for enrollment, 319 were included in the final analysis. Subjects were excluded if they refused to participate (n = 23), were under the age of 18 (n = 2), had technical failures (n = 5), or had physical or visual limitations that precluded them from participation (n = 14). Within the hospitalized subgroup, 268 subjects were discharged home (85%). The table displays demographics and score distributions by subgroup.1

Demographics and FAMTM Score Distribution by Hospitalization Category
Nonhospitalized Subjects, n = 612 Hospitalized Subjects Discharged Home, n = 268 Hospitalized Subjects Discharged Elsewhere, n = 48 P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: FAMTM, Functional Assessment of Mentation; IQR, interquartile range. Three hospitalized subjects were excluded from analysis due to being discharged against medical advice. FAMTM score comparisons were significant for all stepwise comparisons using P < 0.05.

Age, y 52 18 52 19 62 17 <0.001
Female sex 343 (56%) 158 (59%) 26 (54%) 0.63
Education <0.001
Less than high school graduate 31 (5%) 32 (12%) 7 (15%)
High school graduate 312 (51%) 153 (57%) 26 (54%)
College graduate 263 (43%) 43 (16%) 8 (17%)
Missing 6 (1%) 40 (15%) 7 (15%)
Race <0.001
Black 196 (32%) 185 (69%) 34 (71%)
White 324 (53%) 75 (28%) 13 (27%)
Other 86 (14%) 4 (1%) 4 (1%)
Missing 6 (1%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%)
FAMTM score, median (IQR) 5 (47) 5 (36) 3 (15) <0.001

The median FAMTM score for the combined study population was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 36), and median time to completion was 55 seconds (IQR 4567 seconds). A graded reduction was found in the FAMTM score for all stepwise comparisons between nonhospitalized subjects, hospitalized subjects discharged home, and hospitalized subjects not discharged home (median 5 [IQR 47] vs 5 [IQR 36] vs 3 [IQR 15]; P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). The AUC for the FAMTM predicting discharge disposition (home vs not) was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58‐0.74]. After adjusting for confounders, higher FAMTM scores were independently associated with not being hospitalized, being discharged home, higher levels of education, younger age, and white race (see Supporting Table 1 in the online version of this article). Additionally, in the hospitalized subgroup, decreasing FAMTM score was significantly correlated with increasing errors on the SPMSQ (Spearman = 0.27, P < 0.001), whereas the GCS score was not correlated with the SPMSQ (Spearman = 0.05, P = 0.40) (Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated the utility of a rapid and accurate mobile application for assessment of mental status. The FAMTM was able to be quickly administered with a median time to completion of approximately 1 minute. The ability to detect mild alterations in mental status was shown through concurrent validity by FAMTM correlation with the SPMSQ and predictive validity with the association between the FAMTM and discharge disposition. Our study highlights the potential for the FAMTM to be used as a sensitive marker of AMS.

The novel design of the FAMTM presents unique advantages compared to current mental status testing. First, the FAMTM could allow patients with hearing impairment or language barriers to complete a mental status assessment. Additionally, the approximately 1‐minute median time to completion is much faster than other established mental status assessments including the SPMSQ (510 minutes). Compared to the SPMSQ taking 5 minutes, in a 400‐bed hospital, taken once per nursing shift, the FAMTM would save approximately 20,000 hours and 10 nursing full‐time equivalents per year.[5] Finally, many current mental status tests such as the Confusion Assessment Model utilize subjective mental status assessments.[2] However, the FAMTM is designed to be conducted through self‐assessment and, thus, could theoretically be free of observer bias. This potential for self‐administration expands beyond other proposed alternative testing mechanisms of the AMS such as ultrabrief assessments that include items such as asking subjects the months of the year backwards, and what is the day of the week?, and assessing arousal.[12, 13, 14]

In research settings and commonly in hospitals, the GCS and AVPU are used clinically for mental status assessment of hospitalized patients.[6, 15] However, similar to previous literature, our study found that the vast majority of hospitalized patients were defined as neurologically intact by the GCS, which is the more accurate predictor of the 2.[7] One major strength of the FAMTM was that it identified an extensive gradation of scores for patients previously labeled as merely alert, providing greater resolution than the GCS in quantifying mental status.

One of the key benefits of the FAMTM is that it can be measured longitudinally over the course of a patient's hospital stay. Therefore, once a baseline FAMTM score is established, variation from the patient's personal baseline could indicate mental status deterioration, which would not be affected by the patient's demographics, health status, or underlying neurocognitive deficits.

There were important limitations to this study. First, limited generalizability of these data may exist due to the single‐center setting and patient population. However, this initial study provides pilot data for further expansion into the potential broad applicability of the FAMTM to other patient populations and settings. Additionally, the cost of large‐scale implementation of the FAMTM is unknown and was beyond the scope of this pilot study. However, to reduce costs, the FAMTM technology could be integrated into existing hospital technology infrastructure. Finally, the scope of this study prevented a complete assessment of all validity measures or comparison to other mental status assessments such as the digit span or serial sevens tests. However, predictive and concurrent validity were assessed with comparison by discharge disposition, SPMSQ, and GCS scores.

In conclusion, this pilot study identifies the FAMTM application as a potentially clinically useful, novel, rapid, and feasible assessment tool of mental status in a general medicine inpatient setting.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Frank Zadravecz, MPH, for his support with this project.

Disclosures: This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIA 2T35AG029795‐07) and in part by career development awards granted to Dr. Churpek, Dr. Edelson, and Dr. Press by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08 HL121080, K23 HL097157, and K23 HL118151, respectively). Dr. Churpek has received honoraria from Chest for invited speaking engagements. Drs. Churpek and Edelson have a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. In addition, Dr. Edelson has received research support from Philips Healthcare (Andover, MA), the American Heart Association (Dallas, TX), and Laerdal Medical (Stavanger, Norway). She has ownership interest in Quant HC (Chicago, IL), which is developing products for risk stratification of hospitalized patients. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

Altered mental status (AMS) is a complex spectrum of cognitive deficits that includes orientation, memory, language, visuospatial ability, and perception.[1] The clinical definitions of both delirium and dementia include AMS as a hallmark clinical prerequisite. Regardless of etiology, this broader AMS definition is particularly salient in the hospital setting, where AMS is present in up to 60% of inpatients and is associated with longer hospital stay as well as increased morbidity and mortality.[2, 3] Not surprisingly, due to the complexity of identifying and assessing changes in mental status, clinically relevant AMS is often undetected among inpatients.[2] However, when detected, the most common causes of AMS (infection, polypharmacy, and pain) are treatable, suggesting that early AMS identification could alert clinicians to early signs of clinical decompensation, potentially improving clinical outcomes.[4]

Because rapid and systemic clinical detection of AMS is limited by the complexity of mental status, a number of assessments have been created, each with their own advantages, limitations, and target populations. These assessments are often limited by time‐intensive administration, subjectivity of mental status assessment, and lack of sensitivity in general medicine patients. Time‐intensive measures, such as the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) have utility in the research setting, whereas current common clinical risk stratification tools (eg, National Early Warning Score) utilize simpler measures such as the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive (AVPU) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as measures of mental status.[2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

To address the need for a brief, clinically feasible, accurate tool in clinical detection of AMS, our group developed a mobile application for working memory testing, the Functional Assessment of Mentation (FAMTM). In this study, we aimed to identify baseline scoring distributions of the FAMTM in a nonhospitalized subgroup, as well as assess the correlation of the FAMTM to discharge disposition and compare it to the SPMSQ in inpatients.

METHODS

Study Design

We conducted a prospective observational study. Data were collected from both hospitalized and nonhospitalized adult participants as 2 distinct subgroups. Nonhospitalized adult subjects were recruited from a university medical campus (June 2013July 2013; IRB‐12‐0175). Hospitalized participants were recruited from the general medicine service as part of an ongoing study measuring quality of care and resource allocation at the same academic medical center (June 2014August 2014; IRB‐9967).[10]

FAMTM Application

The FAMTM application is a bedside tool for working memory assessment developed for the iPhone mobile operating system (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) and presented on an iPad mini (Apple). The application interface displays 4 colored rectangles individually labeled with a number (see Supporting Figure 1 in the online version of this article). The testing portion of the application presents a sequence of numbered rectangles, illuminated 1 at a time in random order. Subjects are prompted first to watch and remember the sequence and then repeat the sequence by touching the screen within each numbered rectangle. Successful reproduction of the sequence is followed by a distinct and longer sequence, whereas unsuccessful attempts are followed by a shorter sequence. The final FAMTM score corresponds to the longest sequence of rectangles successfully repeated by the subject.

Figure 1
FAMTM vs GCS by SPMSQ score. Box plot of FAMTM (light grey boxes) and GCS scores (dark grey boxes). Median, and 25th and 75th quartile results are demonstrated by vertical lines within in the box, and range is shown by the whiskers. One subject was excluded from analysis due to lack of a GCS score in the medical record. Abbreviations: FAMTM, Functional Assessment of Mentation; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire.

Data Collection

In the nonhospitalized subject population, research assistants collected demographic data immediately prior to FAMTM administration. Among hospitalized subjects, GCS information was collected by nursing staff as part of standard clinical care. One research assistant administered the SPMSQ while a second assistant, blinded to the SPMSQ and GCS scores, administered the FAMTM. Clinical data were obtained from medical records (EPIC Systems Corp., Verona, WI). Discharge disposition was dichotomized as discharged home or not.

Statistical Analyses

Demographic characteristics of the 2 subject populations were compared using Student t tests (continuous variables) and 2 tests (categorical variables). Score distribution and discharge disposition comparison was conducted with the Mann‐Whitney U test and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis, using the trapezoidal rule.[11] Multivariable linear regression was used to investigate the impact of age, race, education, discharge disposition, and hospitalization status on patient scores and times. Correlations between the FAMTM and SPMSQ scores and between the GCS and SPMSQ scores were calculated using the Spearman rank test. Significance was set at a 2‐sided P value of <0.05. Analyses were conducted using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

A total of 931 subjects were enrolled in the study. In the nonhospitalized subgroup, 651 consented to study participation and 612 were included in final analysis. Subjects were excluded if they started but did not complete the application (n = 36) or were under the age of 18 years (n = 3). Of the 363 hospitalized subjects approached for enrollment, 319 were included in the final analysis. Subjects were excluded if they refused to participate (n = 23), were under the age of 18 (n = 2), had technical failures (n = 5), or had physical or visual limitations that precluded them from participation (n = 14). Within the hospitalized subgroup, 268 subjects were discharged home (85%). The table displays demographics and score distributions by subgroup.1

Demographics and FAMTM Score Distribution by Hospitalization Category
Nonhospitalized Subjects, n = 612 Hospitalized Subjects Discharged Home, n = 268 Hospitalized Subjects Discharged Elsewhere, n = 48 P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: FAMTM, Functional Assessment of Mentation; IQR, interquartile range. Three hospitalized subjects were excluded from analysis due to being discharged against medical advice. FAMTM score comparisons were significant for all stepwise comparisons using P < 0.05.

Age, y 52 18 52 19 62 17 <0.001
Female sex 343 (56%) 158 (59%) 26 (54%) 0.63
Education <0.001
Less than high school graduate 31 (5%) 32 (12%) 7 (15%)
High school graduate 312 (51%) 153 (57%) 26 (54%)
College graduate 263 (43%) 43 (16%) 8 (17%)
Missing 6 (1%) 40 (15%) 7 (15%)
Race <0.001
Black 196 (32%) 185 (69%) 34 (71%)
White 324 (53%) 75 (28%) 13 (27%)
Other 86 (14%) 4 (1%) 4 (1%)
Missing 6 (1%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%)
FAMTM score, median (IQR) 5 (47) 5 (36) 3 (15) <0.001

The median FAMTM score for the combined study population was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 36), and median time to completion was 55 seconds (IQR 4567 seconds). A graded reduction was found in the FAMTM score for all stepwise comparisons between nonhospitalized subjects, hospitalized subjects discharged home, and hospitalized subjects not discharged home (median 5 [IQR 47] vs 5 [IQR 36] vs 3 [IQR 15]; P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). The AUC for the FAMTM predicting discharge disposition (home vs not) was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58‐0.74]. After adjusting for confounders, higher FAMTM scores were independently associated with not being hospitalized, being discharged home, higher levels of education, younger age, and white race (see Supporting Table 1 in the online version of this article). Additionally, in the hospitalized subgroup, decreasing FAMTM score was significantly correlated with increasing errors on the SPMSQ (Spearman = 0.27, P < 0.001), whereas the GCS score was not correlated with the SPMSQ (Spearman = 0.05, P = 0.40) (Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated the utility of a rapid and accurate mobile application for assessment of mental status. The FAMTM was able to be quickly administered with a median time to completion of approximately 1 minute. The ability to detect mild alterations in mental status was shown through concurrent validity by FAMTM correlation with the SPMSQ and predictive validity with the association between the FAMTM and discharge disposition. Our study highlights the potential for the FAMTM to be used as a sensitive marker of AMS.

The novel design of the FAMTM presents unique advantages compared to current mental status testing. First, the FAMTM could allow patients with hearing impairment or language barriers to complete a mental status assessment. Additionally, the approximately 1‐minute median time to completion is much faster than other established mental status assessments including the SPMSQ (510 minutes). Compared to the SPMSQ taking 5 minutes, in a 400‐bed hospital, taken once per nursing shift, the FAMTM would save approximately 20,000 hours and 10 nursing full‐time equivalents per year.[5] Finally, many current mental status tests such as the Confusion Assessment Model utilize subjective mental status assessments.[2] However, the FAMTM is designed to be conducted through self‐assessment and, thus, could theoretically be free of observer bias. This potential for self‐administration expands beyond other proposed alternative testing mechanisms of the AMS such as ultrabrief assessments that include items such as asking subjects the months of the year backwards, and what is the day of the week?, and assessing arousal.[12, 13, 14]

In research settings and commonly in hospitals, the GCS and AVPU are used clinically for mental status assessment of hospitalized patients.[6, 15] However, similar to previous literature, our study found that the vast majority of hospitalized patients were defined as neurologically intact by the GCS, which is the more accurate predictor of the 2.[7] One major strength of the FAMTM was that it identified an extensive gradation of scores for patients previously labeled as merely alert, providing greater resolution than the GCS in quantifying mental status.

One of the key benefits of the FAMTM is that it can be measured longitudinally over the course of a patient's hospital stay. Therefore, once a baseline FAMTM score is established, variation from the patient's personal baseline could indicate mental status deterioration, which would not be affected by the patient's demographics, health status, or underlying neurocognitive deficits.

There were important limitations to this study. First, limited generalizability of these data may exist due to the single‐center setting and patient population. However, this initial study provides pilot data for further expansion into the potential broad applicability of the FAMTM to other patient populations and settings. Additionally, the cost of large‐scale implementation of the FAMTM is unknown and was beyond the scope of this pilot study. However, to reduce costs, the FAMTM technology could be integrated into existing hospital technology infrastructure. Finally, the scope of this study prevented a complete assessment of all validity measures or comparison to other mental status assessments such as the digit span or serial sevens tests. However, predictive and concurrent validity were assessed with comparison by discharge disposition, SPMSQ, and GCS scores.

In conclusion, this pilot study identifies the FAMTM application as a potentially clinically useful, novel, rapid, and feasible assessment tool of mental status in a general medicine inpatient setting.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Frank Zadravecz, MPH, for his support with this project.

Disclosures: This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIA 2T35AG029795‐07) and in part by career development awards granted to Dr. Churpek, Dr. Edelson, and Dr. Press by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08 HL121080, K23 HL097157, and K23 HL118151, respectively). Dr. Churpek has received honoraria from Chest for invited speaking engagements. Drs. Churpek and Edelson have a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. In addition, Dr. Edelson has received research support from Philips Healthcare (Andover, MA), the American Heart Association (Dallas, TX), and Laerdal Medical (Stavanger, Norway). She has ownership interest in Quant HC (Chicago, IL), which is developing products for risk stratification of hospitalized patients. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

References
  1. Han JH, Wilber ST. Altered mental status in older patients in the emergency department. Clin Geriatr Med. 2013;29(1):101136.
  2. Inouye SK, Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941948.
  3. Buist M, Bernard S, Nguyen TV, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in‐hospital mortality: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137141.
  4. Schuurmans MJ, Duursma SA, Shortridge‐Baggett LM. Early recognition of delirium: review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2001;10(6):721729.
  5. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433441.
  6. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Meredith P, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death. Resuscitation. 2013;84(4):465470.
  7. Zadravecz FJ, Tien L, Robertson‐Dick BJ, et al. Comparison of mental‐status scales for predicting mortality on the general wards. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):658663.
  8. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;304(7872):8184.
  9. Erkinjuntti T, Sulkava R, Wikström J, Autio L. Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire as a Screening Test for Dementia and Delirium Among the Elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987;35(5):412416.
  10. Meltzer D, Manning W, Morrison J, et al. Effects of physician experience on costs and outcomes on an academic general medicine service: results of a trial of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):866874.
  11. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke‐Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837845.
  12. Fick DM, Inouye SK, Guess J, et al. Preliminary development of an ultrabrief two‐item bedside test for delirium. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):645650.
  13. Yevchak AM, Doherty K, Archambault EG, Kelly B, Fonda JR, Rudolph JL. The association between an ultrabrief cognitive screening in older adults and hospital outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):651657.
  14. Yang FM, Jones RN, Inouye SK, et al. Selecting optimal screening items for delirium: an application of item response theory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:8.
  15. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18(4):379384.
References
  1. Han JH, Wilber ST. Altered mental status in older patients in the emergency department. Clin Geriatr Med. 2013;29(1):101136.
  2. Inouye SK, Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941948.
  3. Buist M, Bernard S, Nguyen TV, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in‐hospital mortality: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137141.
  4. Schuurmans MJ, Duursma SA, Shortridge‐Baggett LM. Early recognition of delirium: review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2001;10(6):721729.
  5. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433441.
  6. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Meredith P, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death. Resuscitation. 2013;84(4):465470.
  7. Zadravecz FJ, Tien L, Robertson‐Dick BJ, et al. Comparison of mental‐status scales for predicting mortality on the general wards. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):658663.
  8. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;304(7872):8184.
  9. Erkinjuntti T, Sulkava R, Wikström J, Autio L. Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire as a Screening Test for Dementia and Delirium Among the Elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987;35(5):412416.
  10. Meltzer D, Manning W, Morrison J, et al. Effects of physician experience on costs and outcomes on an academic general medicine service: results of a trial of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):866874.
  11. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke‐Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837845.
  12. Fick DM, Inouye SK, Guess J, et al. Preliminary development of an ultrabrief two‐item bedside test for delirium. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):645650.
  13. Yevchak AM, Doherty K, Archambault EG, Kelly B, Fonda JR, Rudolph JL. The association between an ultrabrief cognitive screening in older adults and hospital outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):651657.
  14. Yang FM, Jones RN, Inouye SK, et al. Selecting optimal screening items for delirium: an application of item response theory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:8.
  15. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18(4):379384.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Page Number
463-466
Page Number
463-466
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Testing the functional assessment of mentation: A mobile application based assessment of mental status
Display Headline
Testing the functional assessment of mentation: A mobile application based assessment of mental status
Sections
Article Source
© 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Dana P. Edelson, MD, University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Hospital Medicine, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 5000, Chicago, IL 60637; Telephone: 773‐834‐2191; Fax: 773‐795‐7398; E‐mail: dperes@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Mental Status to Predict Mortality

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/16/2017 - 23:02
Display Headline
Comparison of mental‐status scales for predicting mortality on the general wards

Altered mental status (AMS), characterized by abnormal changes in a patient's arousal and/or cognition, is a significant predictor of hospital mortality.[1, 2, 3] Yet despite its prevalence[3, 4, 5] and importance, up to three‐quarters of AMS events go unrecognized by caregivers.[6, 7, 8] Acute changes in mental status, often caused by delirium in the hospitalized patient,[3] can present nonspecifically, making it difficult to detect and distinguish from other diagnoses such as depression or dementia.[7, 9] Further complicating the recognition of AMS, numerous and imprecise qualitative descriptors such as confused and alert and oriented are used in clinical practice to describe the mental status of patients.[10] Thus, more objective measures may result in improved detection of altered mental status and in earlier diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

In critically ill patients, several scales have been widely adopted for quantifying mental status. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was created to optimize sedation.[11] The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was developed for head‐trauma patients[12] and is now a standardized assessment tool in intensive care units,[13] the emergency department,[14] and the prehospital setting.[15] In addition, a simplified scale, AVPU (Alert, responsive to Verbal stimuli, responsive to Painful stimuli, and Unresponsive) was initially used in the primary survey of trauma patients[16] but is now a common component of early‐warning scores and rapid response activation criteria, such as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS).[17, 18] In fact, in a systematic review of 72 distinct early‐warning scores, 89% of the scores used AVPU as the measure of mentation.[17] However, the utility of these 3 scales is not well established in the general‐ward setting. Our aim was therefore to compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting mortality in hospitalized general‐ward patients to provide insight into the accuracy of these different scores for clinical deterioration.

METHODS

Study Setting and Protocol

We conducted an observational cohort study of consecutive adult general‐ward admissions from July 2011 through January 2013 at a 500‐bed, urban US teaching hospital. During the study period, no early‐warning scoring systems were in place on the hospital wards. Rapid response teams responding to altered mental status would do so without specific thresholds for activation. During this period, nurses on the general floors were expected to record each patient's GCS and RASS score in the electronic health record (EPIC Systems Corp., Verona, WI) as part of the routine patient assessment at least once every 12‐hour shift. AVPU assessments were extracted from the eye component of the GCS. The letter A was assigned to a GCS Eye score of 4 (opens eyes spontaneously), V to a score of 3 (opens eyes in response to voice), P to a score of 2 (opens eyes in response to painful stimuli), and U to a score of 1 (does not open eyes). To avoid comparison of mental‐status scores at different time points, only concurrent GCS and RASS scores, documented within 10 minutes of one another, were included in the analysis.

Location and time‐stamped GCS and RASS scores, demographics, and in‐hospital mortality data were obtained from the hospital's Clinical Research Data Warehouse, which is maintained by the Center for Research Informatics at The University of Chicago. The study protocol and data‐collection mechanisms were approved by The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board (#16995A).

Statistical Analysis

Baseline admission characteristics were described using proportions (%) and measures of central tendency (mean, standard deviations [SD]; median, interquartile ranges [IQR]). Patient severity of illness at first ward observation was calculated using the MEWS.[19] All mental‐status observations during a patient's ward stay were included in the analysis. Odds ratios for 24‐hour mortality following an abnormal mental‐status score were calculated using generalized estimating equations, with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for the correlation of scores within the same patient, as more than 1 abnormal mental‐status score may have been documented within the 24 hours preceding death. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients () were used to estimate the correlation among AVPU, GCS, and RASS scores.

The predictive accuracies of AVPU, GCS, RASS, and the subscales of GCS were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation as the primary outcome and the mental‐status score as the predictor variable. Although AUCs are typically used as a measure of discriminative ability, this study used AUCs to summarize both sensitivity and specificity across a range of cutoffs, providing an overall measure of predictive accuracies across mental‐status scales. To estimate AUCs, the AVPU, GCS, and GCS subscales were entered into a logistic regression model as ordinal variables, whereas RASS was entered as a nominal variable due to its positive and negative components, and predicted probabilities were calculated. In addition, a combined model was fit where GCS and RASS were classified as categorical independent variables. AUCs were then calculated by utilizing the predicted probabilities from each logistic regression model using the trapezoidal rule.[20] A sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the internal validity of the RASS model using 10‐fold cross‐validation.

Predefined subgroup analyses were performed that compared the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting 24‐hour mortality in patients above and below the median age of the study population, and between patients who underwent surgery during their admission or not (surgical vs medical). All tests of significance used a 2‐sided P value <0.05. All data analysis was performed using Stata version 13.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

During the study period, 313,577 complete GCS and 305,177 RASS scores were recorded in the electronic health record by nursing staff. A total of 26,806 (17,603 GCS and 9203 RASS) observations were excluded due to nonsimultaneous measurement of the other score, resulting in 295,974 paired mental‐status observations. These observations were obtained from 26,873 admissions in 17,660 unique patients, with a median MEWS at ward admission of 1 (IQR 11). The mean patient age was 57 years (SD 17), and 23% were surgical patients (Table 1). Patients spent a median 63.9 hours (IQR 26.7118.6) on the wards per admission and contributed a median of 3 paired observations (IQR 24) per day, with 91% of patients having at least 2 observations per day. A total of 417 (1.6%) general‐ward admissions resulted in death during the hospitalization, with 354 mental‐status observations occurring within 24 hours of a death. In addition, 26,618 (99.9%) admissions had at least 1 paired mental‐status observation within the last 24 hours of their ward stay.

Baseline Characteristics of Hospital Admissions
  • NOTE: Characteristics are stratified at the hospital admission level. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; MEWS, Modified Early Warning Score; n, number of observations; SD, standard deviation.

Total no. of admissions26,873
Total no. of unique patients17,660
Age, y, mean (SD)57 (17)
Female sex, n (%)14,293 (53)
Race, n (%) 
White10,516 (39)
Black12,580 (47)
Other/unknown3,777 (14)
Admission MEWS, median (IQR)1 (11)
Days on ward, median (IQR)5 (310)
Observations per person, per day, median (IQR)3 (24)
Underwent surgery during hospitalization, n (%)6,141 (23)
Deaths, n (%)417 (1.6)

AVPU was moderately correlated with GCS (Spearman's =0.56) (Figure 1a) and weakly correlated with RASS (Spearman's =0.28) (Figure 1b). GCS scores were also weakly correlated to RASS (Spearman's =0.13, P<0.001). Notably, AVPU mapped to distinct levels of GCS, with Alert associated with a median GCS total score of 15, Voice a score of 12, Pain a score of 8, and Unresponsive a score of 5. Abnormal mental‐status scores on any scale were associated with significantly higher odds of death within 24 hours than normal mental‐status scores (Table 2). This association was consistent within the 3 subscales of GCS and for scores in both the sedation (<0) and agitation (>0) ranges of RASS.

Figure 1
Score correlations between (1a) AVPU and GCS total, and between (1b) AVPU and RASS. Boxes indicate interquartile range (25th to 75th percentiles), whiskers indicate 5th to 95th percentiles, and diamonds indicate median. Each correlation is significant at P < 0.001. Abbreviations: AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.
Odds of Mortality Within 24 Hours of an Abnormal Mental‐Status Score
Mental‐status ScoreObservations, n (%)Odds Ratio for Mortality (95% CI)
  • NOTE: Odds ratios, with 95% CIs, comparing the probability of mortality within 24 hours of an abnormal mental‐status score to the probability of mortality within 24 hours of a normal mental‐status score (Reference). All calculations control for clustering of observations within the same admission. All odds ratios were significant at P<0.001. Abbreviations: AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; CI, confidence interval; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; n, number of observations; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.

GCS Eye (AVPU)  
4 (alert)289,857 (98)Reference
<4 (not alert)6,117 (2)33.8 (23.947.9)
GCS Verbal  
5277,862 (94)Reference
411,258 (4)4.7 (2.87.9)
<46,854 (2)52.7 (38.073.2)
GCS Motor  
6287,441 (97)Reference
<68,533 (3)41.8 (30.756.9)
GCS total  
15276,042 (93)Reference
13, 1412,437 (4)5.2 (3.38.3)
<137,495 (3)55.5 (40.077.1)
RASS  
>06,867 (2)8.5 (5.613.0)
0275,708 (93)Reference
<013,339 (5)25.8 (19.234.6)

AVPU was the least accurate predictor of mortality (AUC 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.710.76]), whereas simultaneous use of GCS and RASS was the most accurate predictor (AUC 0.85 [95% CI: 0.820.87] (Figure 2). The accuracies of GCS and RASS were not significantly different from one another in the total study population (AUC 0.80 [95% CI: 0.770.83] and 0.82 [0.790.84], respectively, P=0.13). Ten‐fold cross‐validation to estimate the internal validity of the RASS model resulted in a lower AUC (0.78 [95% CI: 0.750.81]) for RASS as a predictor of 24‐hour mortality. Subgroup analysis indicated that RASS was more accurate than GCS in younger patients (<57 years old) and in surgical patients (Figure 3).

Figure 2
Predictive accuracies of mental‐status scales (and GCS subscales) for mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation (*P < 0.001). AUC with whiskers indicating 95% confidence intervals for predicting mortality occurring within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation. AUCs are shown for each mental‐status scale, for the combination of GCS and RASS, and for the 3 subscales of the GCS. Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.
Figure 3
Predictive accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation. Subgroup analysis is based on age and surgical status (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001). AUC with whiskers indicating 95% CI for predicting mortality occurring within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation, analyzed at the observation level, and stratified by patient age (below or greater than or equal to the median age of 57 years) and surgical status (patient with surgery during hospitalization or medical patient only). Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.

Removal of the 255 admissions missing a paired mental‐status observation within the last 24 hours of their ward stay resulted in no change in the AUC values. A sensitivity analysis for prediction of a combined secondary outcome of 24‐hour intensive care unit ICU transfer or cardiac arrest yielded lower AUCs for each mental‐status scale, with no change in the association among scales.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting mortality in the general‐ward setting. Similar to McNarry and Goldhill, we demonstrated that AVPU scores mapped to distinct levels of GCS. Although our study reports the same median GCS scores of 15 and 8 for AVPU levels of Alert and Pain, respectively, we indicate slightly lower corresponding median GCS scores for AVPU scores of Voice (12 vs 13) and Unresponsive (5 vs 6) than their previous work.[21] We found that AVPU was the least accurate predictor of mortality within 24 hours of an observation, and the combination of GCS and RASS was the most accurate. RASS was at least as accurate a predictor for 24‐hour mortality in comparison to GCS total in the overall study population. However, the RASS score was the most accurate individual score in surgical and younger patients. These findings suggest that changing from the commonly used AVPU scale to the RASS and/or GCS would improve the prognostic ability of mental‐status assessments on the general wards.

Buist and colleagues have previously demonstrated altered mental status to be one of the strongest predictors of death on the wards. In that study, a GCS score of 3 and a decrease in GCS score by more than 2 points were independently associated with mortality (odds ratio 6.1 [95% CI: 3.111.8] and 5.5 [95% CI: 2.611.9], respectively).[22] We have also previously shown that after adjusting for vital signs, being unresponsive to pain was associated with a 4.5‐fold increase in the odds of death within 24 hours,[23]whereas Subbe and colleagues showed a relative risk ratio of 5.2 (95% CI: 1.518.1) for the combined endpoint of cardiac arrest, death at 60 days, or admission to the intensive care/high dependency unit.[19] In the current study, the magnitude of these associations was even stronger, with a GCS score <13 correlating with a 55‐fold increase in the odds of death, compared to a normal GCS, and not being alert being associated with a 33.8‐fold increase in the odds of death. This difference in magnitude is likely a product of the univariate nature of the current analysis, compared to both the Buist et al. and Churpek et al. studies, which adjusted for vital signs, thereby lessening the impact of any single predictor. Because this study was designed to compare mental‐status variables to one another for future model inclusion, and all the analyses were paired, confounding by additional predictors of death was not a concern.

One of the potential strengths of RASS over GCS and AVPU is its ability to measure agitation levels, in addition to depressed mentation, a feature that has been shown to be present in up to 60% of delirium episodes.[24] This may also explain why RASS was the most accurate predictor of mortality in our subset of younger patients and surgical patients, because hyperactive delirium is more common in younger and healthier patients, which surgical patients tend to be as compared to medical patients.[25, 26] In this study, we found negative RASS scores portending a worse prognosis than positive ones, which supports previous findings that hypoactive delirium had a higher association with mortality than hyperactive delirium at 6 months (hazard ratio 1.90 vs 1.37) and at 1 year (hazard ratio 1.60 vs 1.30) in elderly patients at postacute‐care facilities in 2 separate studies.[27, 28] However, a study of patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture found that patients with hyperactive delirium were more likely to die or be placed in a nursing home at 1 month follow‐up when compared to patients with purely hypoactive delirium (79% vs 32%, P=0.003).[29]

We found the assessment of RASS and GCS by ward nurses to be highly feasible. During the study period, nurses assessed mental status with the GCS and RASS scales at least once per 12‐hour shift in 91% of patients. GCS has been shown to be reliably and accurately recorded by experienced nurses (reliability coefficient=0.944 with 96.4% agreement with expert ratings).[30] RASS can take <30 seconds to administer, and in previous studies of the ICU setting has been shown to have over 94% nurse compliance for administration,[31] and good inter‐rater reliability (weighted kappa 0.66 and 0.89, respectively).[31, 32] Further, in a prior survey of 55 critical care nurses, 82% agreed that RASS was easy to score and clinically relevant.[31]

This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in a single academic institution, which may limit generalizability to other hospitals. Second, baseline cognition and comorbidities were not available in the dataset, so we were unable to conduct additional subgroup analyses by these categories. However, we used age and hospital admission type as proxies. Third, the AVPU scores in this study were extracted from the Eye subset of the GCS scale, as AVPU was not directly assessed on our wards during the study period. Clinical assessment of mental status on the AVPU scale notes the presence of any active patient response (eg, eye opening, grunting, moaning, movement) to increasingly noxious stimuli. As such, our adaptation of AVPU using only eye‐opening criteria may underestimate the true number of patients correctly classified as alert, or responding to vocal/painful stimuli. However, a sensitivity analysis comparing directly assessed AVPU during a 3‐year period prior to the study implementation at our institution, and AVPU derived from the GCS Eye subscale for the study period, indicated no difference in predictive value for 24‐hour mortality. Fourth, we did not perform trend analyses for change from baseline mental status or evolution of AMS, which may more accurately predict 24‐hour mortality than discrete mental‐status observations. Finally, the 3 scales we compared differ in length, which may bias the AUC against AVPU, a 4‐point scale with a trapezoidal ROC curve compared to the smoother curve generated by the 15‐point GCS scale, for example. However, the lack of discrimination of the AVPU is the likely source of its lesser accuracy.

CONCLUSION

In the general‐ward setting, routine collection of GCS and RASS is feasible, and both are significantly more accurate for predicting mortality than the more commonly used AVPU scale. In addition, the combination of GCS and RASS has greater accuracy than any of the 3 individual scales. RASS may be particularly beneficial in the assessment of younger and/or surgical patients. Routine documentation and tracking of GCS and/or RASS by nurses may improve the detection of clinical deterioration in general‐ward patients. In addition, future early‐warning scores may benefit from the inclusion of GCS and/or RASS in lieu of AVPU.

Disclosures

Drs. Churpek and Edelson have a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. Dr. Churpek is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08 HL121080). Dr. Edelson has received research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23 HL097157), Philips (Andover, MA), the American Heart Association (Dallas, TX), Laerdal Medical (Stavanger, Norway), and Early Sense (Tel Aviv, Israel). She has ownership interest in Quant HC (Chicago, IL), which is developing products for risk stratification of hospitalized patients. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Files
References
  1. Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2004;291(14):17531762.
  2. Pompei P, Foreman M, Rudberg MA, Inouye SK, Braund V, Cassel CK. Delirium in hospitalized older persons: outcomes and predictors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(8):809815.
  3. Siddiqi N, House AO, Holmes JD. Occurrence and outcome of delirium in medical in‐patients: a systematic literature review. Age Ageing. 2006;35(4):350364.
  4. Levkoff SE, Evans DA, Liptzin B, et al. Delirium. The occurrence and persistence of symptoms among elderly hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(2):334340.
  5. Dyer CB, Ashton CM, Teasdale TA. Postoperative delirium. A review of 80 primary data‐collection studies. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(5):461465.
  6. Inouye SK, Foreman MD, Mion LC, Katz KH, Cooney LM Nurses' recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(20):24672473.
  7. Armstrong SC, Cozza KL, Watanabe KS. The misdiagnosis of delirium. Psychosomatics. 1997;38(5):433439.
  8. Ely EW, Stephens RK, Jackson JC, et al. Current opinions regarding the importance, diagnosis, and management of delirium in the intensive care unit: a survey of 912 healthcare professionals. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(1):106112.
  9. Farrell KR, Ganzini L. Misdiagnosing delirium as depression in medically ill elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(22):24592464.
  10. Simpson CJ. Doctors and nurses use of the word confused. Br J Psychiatry. 1984;145:441443.
  11. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):13381344.
  12. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1976;34(1–4):4555.
  13. Bastos PG, Sun X, Wagner DP, Wu AW, Knaus WA. Glasgow Coma Scale score in the evaluation of outcome in the intensive care unit: findings from the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III study. Crit Care Med. 1993;21(10):14591465.
  14. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18(4):379384.
  15. Menegazzi JJ, Davis EA, Sucov AN, Paris PM. Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale when used by emergency physicians and paramedics. J Trauma. 1993;34(1):4648.
  16. Alexander RH, Proctor HJ; American College of Surgeons. Committee on Trauma. Advanced Trauma Life Support Program For Physicians: ATLS. 5th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 1993.
  17. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. Review and performance evaluation of aggregate weighted 'track and trigger' systems. Resuscitation. 2008;77(2):170179.
  18. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI, Higgins B. A review, and performance evaluation, of single‐parameter “track and trigger” systems. Resuscitation. 2008;79(1):1121.
  19. Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, Gemmel L. Validation of a modified Early Warning score in medical admissions. QJM. 2001;94(10):521526.
  20. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke‐Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837845.
  21. McNarry AF, Goldhill DR. Simple bedside assessment of level of consciousness: comparison of two simple assessment scales with the Glascow Coma Scale. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(1):3437.
  22. Buist M, Bernard S, Nguyen TV, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in‐hospital mortality: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137141.
  23. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Edelson DP. Predicting clinical deterioration in the hospital: the impact of outcome selection. Resuscitation. 2013;84(5):564568.
  24. Peterson JF, Pun BT, Dittus RS, et al. Delirium and its motoric subtypes: a study of 614 critically ill patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(3):479484.
  25. Angles EM, Robinson TN, Biffl WL, et al. Risk factors for delirium after major trauma. Am J Surg. 2008;196(6):864869.
  26. Meagher DJ, O'Hanlon D, O'Mahony E, Casey PR, Trzepacz PT. Relationship between symptoms and motoric subtype of delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2000;12(1):5156.
  27. Yang FM, Marcantonio ER, Inouye SK, et al. Phenomenological subtypes of delirium in older persons: patterns, prevalence, and prognosis. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(3):248254.
  28. Kiely DK, Jones RN, Bergmann MA, Marcantonio ER. Association between psychomotor activity delirium subtypes and mortality among newly admitted post‐acute facility patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62(2):174179.
  29. Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, Resnick NM. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850857.
  30. Rowley G, Fielding K. Reliability and accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Scale with experienced and inexperienced users. Lancet. 1991;337(8740):535538.
  31. Pun BT, Gordon SM, Peterson JF, et al. Large‐scale implementation of sedation and delirium monitoring in the intensive care unit: a report from two medical centers. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):11991205.
  32. Vasilevskis EE, Morandi A, Boehm L, et al. Delirium and sedation recognition using validated instruments: reliability of bedside intensive care unit nursing assessments from 2007 to 2010. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(suppl 2):S249S255.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(10)
Publications
Page Number
658-663
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Altered mental status (AMS), characterized by abnormal changes in a patient's arousal and/or cognition, is a significant predictor of hospital mortality.[1, 2, 3] Yet despite its prevalence[3, 4, 5] and importance, up to three‐quarters of AMS events go unrecognized by caregivers.[6, 7, 8] Acute changes in mental status, often caused by delirium in the hospitalized patient,[3] can present nonspecifically, making it difficult to detect and distinguish from other diagnoses such as depression or dementia.[7, 9] Further complicating the recognition of AMS, numerous and imprecise qualitative descriptors such as confused and alert and oriented are used in clinical practice to describe the mental status of patients.[10] Thus, more objective measures may result in improved detection of altered mental status and in earlier diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

In critically ill patients, several scales have been widely adopted for quantifying mental status. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was created to optimize sedation.[11] The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was developed for head‐trauma patients[12] and is now a standardized assessment tool in intensive care units,[13] the emergency department,[14] and the prehospital setting.[15] In addition, a simplified scale, AVPU (Alert, responsive to Verbal stimuli, responsive to Painful stimuli, and Unresponsive) was initially used in the primary survey of trauma patients[16] but is now a common component of early‐warning scores and rapid response activation criteria, such as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS).[17, 18] In fact, in a systematic review of 72 distinct early‐warning scores, 89% of the scores used AVPU as the measure of mentation.[17] However, the utility of these 3 scales is not well established in the general‐ward setting. Our aim was therefore to compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting mortality in hospitalized general‐ward patients to provide insight into the accuracy of these different scores for clinical deterioration.

METHODS

Study Setting and Protocol

We conducted an observational cohort study of consecutive adult general‐ward admissions from July 2011 through January 2013 at a 500‐bed, urban US teaching hospital. During the study period, no early‐warning scoring systems were in place on the hospital wards. Rapid response teams responding to altered mental status would do so without specific thresholds for activation. During this period, nurses on the general floors were expected to record each patient's GCS and RASS score in the electronic health record (EPIC Systems Corp., Verona, WI) as part of the routine patient assessment at least once every 12‐hour shift. AVPU assessments were extracted from the eye component of the GCS. The letter A was assigned to a GCS Eye score of 4 (opens eyes spontaneously), V to a score of 3 (opens eyes in response to voice), P to a score of 2 (opens eyes in response to painful stimuli), and U to a score of 1 (does not open eyes). To avoid comparison of mental‐status scores at different time points, only concurrent GCS and RASS scores, documented within 10 minutes of one another, were included in the analysis.

Location and time‐stamped GCS and RASS scores, demographics, and in‐hospital mortality data were obtained from the hospital's Clinical Research Data Warehouse, which is maintained by the Center for Research Informatics at The University of Chicago. The study protocol and data‐collection mechanisms were approved by The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board (#16995A).

Statistical Analysis

Baseline admission characteristics were described using proportions (%) and measures of central tendency (mean, standard deviations [SD]; median, interquartile ranges [IQR]). Patient severity of illness at first ward observation was calculated using the MEWS.[19] All mental‐status observations during a patient's ward stay were included in the analysis. Odds ratios for 24‐hour mortality following an abnormal mental‐status score were calculated using generalized estimating equations, with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for the correlation of scores within the same patient, as more than 1 abnormal mental‐status score may have been documented within the 24 hours preceding death. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients () were used to estimate the correlation among AVPU, GCS, and RASS scores.

The predictive accuracies of AVPU, GCS, RASS, and the subscales of GCS were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation as the primary outcome and the mental‐status score as the predictor variable. Although AUCs are typically used as a measure of discriminative ability, this study used AUCs to summarize both sensitivity and specificity across a range of cutoffs, providing an overall measure of predictive accuracies across mental‐status scales. To estimate AUCs, the AVPU, GCS, and GCS subscales were entered into a logistic regression model as ordinal variables, whereas RASS was entered as a nominal variable due to its positive and negative components, and predicted probabilities were calculated. In addition, a combined model was fit where GCS and RASS were classified as categorical independent variables. AUCs were then calculated by utilizing the predicted probabilities from each logistic regression model using the trapezoidal rule.[20] A sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the internal validity of the RASS model using 10‐fold cross‐validation.

Predefined subgroup analyses were performed that compared the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting 24‐hour mortality in patients above and below the median age of the study population, and between patients who underwent surgery during their admission or not (surgical vs medical). All tests of significance used a 2‐sided P value <0.05. All data analysis was performed using Stata version 13.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

During the study period, 313,577 complete GCS and 305,177 RASS scores were recorded in the electronic health record by nursing staff. A total of 26,806 (17,603 GCS and 9203 RASS) observations were excluded due to nonsimultaneous measurement of the other score, resulting in 295,974 paired mental‐status observations. These observations were obtained from 26,873 admissions in 17,660 unique patients, with a median MEWS at ward admission of 1 (IQR 11). The mean patient age was 57 years (SD 17), and 23% were surgical patients (Table 1). Patients spent a median 63.9 hours (IQR 26.7118.6) on the wards per admission and contributed a median of 3 paired observations (IQR 24) per day, with 91% of patients having at least 2 observations per day. A total of 417 (1.6%) general‐ward admissions resulted in death during the hospitalization, with 354 mental‐status observations occurring within 24 hours of a death. In addition, 26,618 (99.9%) admissions had at least 1 paired mental‐status observation within the last 24 hours of their ward stay.

Baseline Characteristics of Hospital Admissions
  • NOTE: Characteristics are stratified at the hospital admission level. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; MEWS, Modified Early Warning Score; n, number of observations; SD, standard deviation.

Total no. of admissions26,873
Total no. of unique patients17,660
Age, y, mean (SD)57 (17)
Female sex, n (%)14,293 (53)
Race, n (%) 
White10,516 (39)
Black12,580 (47)
Other/unknown3,777 (14)
Admission MEWS, median (IQR)1 (11)
Days on ward, median (IQR)5 (310)
Observations per person, per day, median (IQR)3 (24)
Underwent surgery during hospitalization, n (%)6,141 (23)
Deaths, n (%)417 (1.6)

AVPU was moderately correlated with GCS (Spearman's =0.56) (Figure 1a) and weakly correlated with RASS (Spearman's =0.28) (Figure 1b). GCS scores were also weakly correlated to RASS (Spearman's =0.13, P<0.001). Notably, AVPU mapped to distinct levels of GCS, with Alert associated with a median GCS total score of 15, Voice a score of 12, Pain a score of 8, and Unresponsive a score of 5. Abnormal mental‐status scores on any scale were associated with significantly higher odds of death within 24 hours than normal mental‐status scores (Table 2). This association was consistent within the 3 subscales of GCS and for scores in both the sedation (<0) and agitation (>0) ranges of RASS.

Figure 1
Score correlations between (1a) AVPU and GCS total, and between (1b) AVPU and RASS. Boxes indicate interquartile range (25th to 75th percentiles), whiskers indicate 5th to 95th percentiles, and diamonds indicate median. Each correlation is significant at P < 0.001. Abbreviations: AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.
Odds of Mortality Within 24 Hours of an Abnormal Mental‐Status Score
Mental‐status ScoreObservations, n (%)Odds Ratio for Mortality (95% CI)
  • NOTE: Odds ratios, with 95% CIs, comparing the probability of mortality within 24 hours of an abnormal mental‐status score to the probability of mortality within 24 hours of a normal mental‐status score (Reference). All calculations control for clustering of observations within the same admission. All odds ratios were significant at P<0.001. Abbreviations: AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; CI, confidence interval; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; n, number of observations; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.

GCS Eye (AVPU)  
4 (alert)289,857 (98)Reference
<4 (not alert)6,117 (2)33.8 (23.947.9)
GCS Verbal  
5277,862 (94)Reference
411,258 (4)4.7 (2.87.9)
<46,854 (2)52.7 (38.073.2)
GCS Motor  
6287,441 (97)Reference
<68,533 (3)41.8 (30.756.9)
GCS total  
15276,042 (93)Reference
13, 1412,437 (4)5.2 (3.38.3)
<137,495 (3)55.5 (40.077.1)
RASS  
>06,867 (2)8.5 (5.613.0)
0275,708 (93)Reference
<013,339 (5)25.8 (19.234.6)

AVPU was the least accurate predictor of mortality (AUC 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.710.76]), whereas simultaneous use of GCS and RASS was the most accurate predictor (AUC 0.85 [95% CI: 0.820.87] (Figure 2). The accuracies of GCS and RASS were not significantly different from one another in the total study population (AUC 0.80 [95% CI: 0.770.83] and 0.82 [0.790.84], respectively, P=0.13). Ten‐fold cross‐validation to estimate the internal validity of the RASS model resulted in a lower AUC (0.78 [95% CI: 0.750.81]) for RASS as a predictor of 24‐hour mortality. Subgroup analysis indicated that RASS was more accurate than GCS in younger patients (<57 years old) and in surgical patients (Figure 3).

Figure 2
Predictive accuracies of mental‐status scales (and GCS subscales) for mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation (*P < 0.001). AUC with whiskers indicating 95% confidence intervals for predicting mortality occurring within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation. AUCs are shown for each mental‐status scale, for the combination of GCS and RASS, and for the 3 subscales of the GCS. Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.
Figure 3
Predictive accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation. Subgroup analysis is based on age and surgical status (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001). AUC with whiskers indicating 95% CI for predicting mortality occurring within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation, analyzed at the observation level, and stratified by patient age (below or greater than or equal to the median age of 57 years) and surgical status (patient with surgery during hospitalization or medical patient only). Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.

Removal of the 255 admissions missing a paired mental‐status observation within the last 24 hours of their ward stay resulted in no change in the AUC values. A sensitivity analysis for prediction of a combined secondary outcome of 24‐hour intensive care unit ICU transfer or cardiac arrest yielded lower AUCs for each mental‐status scale, with no change in the association among scales.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting mortality in the general‐ward setting. Similar to McNarry and Goldhill, we demonstrated that AVPU scores mapped to distinct levels of GCS. Although our study reports the same median GCS scores of 15 and 8 for AVPU levels of Alert and Pain, respectively, we indicate slightly lower corresponding median GCS scores for AVPU scores of Voice (12 vs 13) and Unresponsive (5 vs 6) than their previous work.[21] We found that AVPU was the least accurate predictor of mortality within 24 hours of an observation, and the combination of GCS and RASS was the most accurate. RASS was at least as accurate a predictor for 24‐hour mortality in comparison to GCS total in the overall study population. However, the RASS score was the most accurate individual score in surgical and younger patients. These findings suggest that changing from the commonly used AVPU scale to the RASS and/or GCS would improve the prognostic ability of mental‐status assessments on the general wards.

Buist and colleagues have previously demonstrated altered mental status to be one of the strongest predictors of death on the wards. In that study, a GCS score of 3 and a decrease in GCS score by more than 2 points were independently associated with mortality (odds ratio 6.1 [95% CI: 3.111.8] and 5.5 [95% CI: 2.611.9], respectively).[22] We have also previously shown that after adjusting for vital signs, being unresponsive to pain was associated with a 4.5‐fold increase in the odds of death within 24 hours,[23]whereas Subbe and colleagues showed a relative risk ratio of 5.2 (95% CI: 1.518.1) for the combined endpoint of cardiac arrest, death at 60 days, or admission to the intensive care/high dependency unit.[19] In the current study, the magnitude of these associations was even stronger, with a GCS score <13 correlating with a 55‐fold increase in the odds of death, compared to a normal GCS, and not being alert being associated with a 33.8‐fold increase in the odds of death. This difference in magnitude is likely a product of the univariate nature of the current analysis, compared to both the Buist et al. and Churpek et al. studies, which adjusted for vital signs, thereby lessening the impact of any single predictor. Because this study was designed to compare mental‐status variables to one another for future model inclusion, and all the analyses were paired, confounding by additional predictors of death was not a concern.

One of the potential strengths of RASS over GCS and AVPU is its ability to measure agitation levels, in addition to depressed mentation, a feature that has been shown to be present in up to 60% of delirium episodes.[24] This may also explain why RASS was the most accurate predictor of mortality in our subset of younger patients and surgical patients, because hyperactive delirium is more common in younger and healthier patients, which surgical patients tend to be as compared to medical patients.[25, 26] In this study, we found negative RASS scores portending a worse prognosis than positive ones, which supports previous findings that hypoactive delirium had a higher association with mortality than hyperactive delirium at 6 months (hazard ratio 1.90 vs 1.37) and at 1 year (hazard ratio 1.60 vs 1.30) in elderly patients at postacute‐care facilities in 2 separate studies.[27, 28] However, a study of patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture found that patients with hyperactive delirium were more likely to die or be placed in a nursing home at 1 month follow‐up when compared to patients with purely hypoactive delirium (79% vs 32%, P=0.003).[29]

We found the assessment of RASS and GCS by ward nurses to be highly feasible. During the study period, nurses assessed mental status with the GCS and RASS scales at least once per 12‐hour shift in 91% of patients. GCS has been shown to be reliably and accurately recorded by experienced nurses (reliability coefficient=0.944 with 96.4% agreement with expert ratings).[30] RASS can take <30 seconds to administer, and in previous studies of the ICU setting has been shown to have over 94% nurse compliance for administration,[31] and good inter‐rater reliability (weighted kappa 0.66 and 0.89, respectively).[31, 32] Further, in a prior survey of 55 critical care nurses, 82% agreed that RASS was easy to score and clinically relevant.[31]

This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in a single academic institution, which may limit generalizability to other hospitals. Second, baseline cognition and comorbidities were not available in the dataset, so we were unable to conduct additional subgroup analyses by these categories. However, we used age and hospital admission type as proxies. Third, the AVPU scores in this study were extracted from the Eye subset of the GCS scale, as AVPU was not directly assessed on our wards during the study period. Clinical assessment of mental status on the AVPU scale notes the presence of any active patient response (eg, eye opening, grunting, moaning, movement) to increasingly noxious stimuli. As such, our adaptation of AVPU using only eye‐opening criteria may underestimate the true number of patients correctly classified as alert, or responding to vocal/painful stimuli. However, a sensitivity analysis comparing directly assessed AVPU during a 3‐year period prior to the study implementation at our institution, and AVPU derived from the GCS Eye subscale for the study period, indicated no difference in predictive value for 24‐hour mortality. Fourth, we did not perform trend analyses for change from baseline mental status or evolution of AMS, which may more accurately predict 24‐hour mortality than discrete mental‐status observations. Finally, the 3 scales we compared differ in length, which may bias the AUC against AVPU, a 4‐point scale with a trapezoidal ROC curve compared to the smoother curve generated by the 15‐point GCS scale, for example. However, the lack of discrimination of the AVPU is the likely source of its lesser accuracy.

CONCLUSION

In the general‐ward setting, routine collection of GCS and RASS is feasible, and both are significantly more accurate for predicting mortality than the more commonly used AVPU scale. In addition, the combination of GCS and RASS has greater accuracy than any of the 3 individual scales. RASS may be particularly beneficial in the assessment of younger and/or surgical patients. Routine documentation and tracking of GCS and/or RASS by nurses may improve the detection of clinical deterioration in general‐ward patients. In addition, future early‐warning scores may benefit from the inclusion of GCS and/or RASS in lieu of AVPU.

Disclosures

Drs. Churpek and Edelson have a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. Dr. Churpek is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08 HL121080). Dr. Edelson has received research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23 HL097157), Philips (Andover, MA), the American Heart Association (Dallas, TX), Laerdal Medical (Stavanger, Norway), and Early Sense (Tel Aviv, Israel). She has ownership interest in Quant HC (Chicago, IL), which is developing products for risk stratification of hospitalized patients. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Altered mental status (AMS), characterized by abnormal changes in a patient's arousal and/or cognition, is a significant predictor of hospital mortality.[1, 2, 3] Yet despite its prevalence[3, 4, 5] and importance, up to three‐quarters of AMS events go unrecognized by caregivers.[6, 7, 8] Acute changes in mental status, often caused by delirium in the hospitalized patient,[3] can present nonspecifically, making it difficult to detect and distinguish from other diagnoses such as depression or dementia.[7, 9] Further complicating the recognition of AMS, numerous and imprecise qualitative descriptors such as confused and alert and oriented are used in clinical practice to describe the mental status of patients.[10] Thus, more objective measures may result in improved detection of altered mental status and in earlier diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

In critically ill patients, several scales have been widely adopted for quantifying mental status. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was created to optimize sedation.[11] The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was developed for head‐trauma patients[12] and is now a standardized assessment tool in intensive care units,[13] the emergency department,[14] and the prehospital setting.[15] In addition, a simplified scale, AVPU (Alert, responsive to Verbal stimuli, responsive to Painful stimuli, and Unresponsive) was initially used in the primary survey of trauma patients[16] but is now a common component of early‐warning scores and rapid response activation criteria, such as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS).[17, 18] In fact, in a systematic review of 72 distinct early‐warning scores, 89% of the scores used AVPU as the measure of mentation.[17] However, the utility of these 3 scales is not well established in the general‐ward setting. Our aim was therefore to compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting mortality in hospitalized general‐ward patients to provide insight into the accuracy of these different scores for clinical deterioration.

METHODS

Study Setting and Protocol

We conducted an observational cohort study of consecutive adult general‐ward admissions from July 2011 through January 2013 at a 500‐bed, urban US teaching hospital. During the study period, no early‐warning scoring systems were in place on the hospital wards. Rapid response teams responding to altered mental status would do so without specific thresholds for activation. During this period, nurses on the general floors were expected to record each patient's GCS and RASS score in the electronic health record (EPIC Systems Corp., Verona, WI) as part of the routine patient assessment at least once every 12‐hour shift. AVPU assessments were extracted from the eye component of the GCS. The letter A was assigned to a GCS Eye score of 4 (opens eyes spontaneously), V to a score of 3 (opens eyes in response to voice), P to a score of 2 (opens eyes in response to painful stimuli), and U to a score of 1 (does not open eyes). To avoid comparison of mental‐status scores at different time points, only concurrent GCS and RASS scores, documented within 10 minutes of one another, were included in the analysis.

Location and time‐stamped GCS and RASS scores, demographics, and in‐hospital mortality data were obtained from the hospital's Clinical Research Data Warehouse, which is maintained by the Center for Research Informatics at The University of Chicago. The study protocol and data‐collection mechanisms were approved by The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board (#16995A).

Statistical Analysis

Baseline admission characteristics were described using proportions (%) and measures of central tendency (mean, standard deviations [SD]; median, interquartile ranges [IQR]). Patient severity of illness at first ward observation was calculated using the MEWS.[19] All mental‐status observations during a patient's ward stay were included in the analysis. Odds ratios for 24‐hour mortality following an abnormal mental‐status score were calculated using generalized estimating equations, with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for the correlation of scores within the same patient, as more than 1 abnormal mental‐status score may have been documented within the 24 hours preceding death. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients () were used to estimate the correlation among AVPU, GCS, and RASS scores.

The predictive accuracies of AVPU, GCS, RASS, and the subscales of GCS were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation as the primary outcome and the mental‐status score as the predictor variable. Although AUCs are typically used as a measure of discriminative ability, this study used AUCs to summarize both sensitivity and specificity across a range of cutoffs, providing an overall measure of predictive accuracies across mental‐status scales. To estimate AUCs, the AVPU, GCS, and GCS subscales were entered into a logistic regression model as ordinal variables, whereas RASS was entered as a nominal variable due to its positive and negative components, and predicted probabilities were calculated. In addition, a combined model was fit where GCS and RASS were classified as categorical independent variables. AUCs were then calculated by utilizing the predicted probabilities from each logistic regression model using the trapezoidal rule.[20] A sensitivity analysis was performed to estimate the internal validity of the RASS model using 10‐fold cross‐validation.

Predefined subgroup analyses were performed that compared the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting 24‐hour mortality in patients above and below the median age of the study population, and between patients who underwent surgery during their admission or not (surgical vs medical). All tests of significance used a 2‐sided P value <0.05. All data analysis was performed using Stata version 13.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

During the study period, 313,577 complete GCS and 305,177 RASS scores were recorded in the electronic health record by nursing staff. A total of 26,806 (17,603 GCS and 9203 RASS) observations were excluded due to nonsimultaneous measurement of the other score, resulting in 295,974 paired mental‐status observations. These observations were obtained from 26,873 admissions in 17,660 unique patients, with a median MEWS at ward admission of 1 (IQR 11). The mean patient age was 57 years (SD 17), and 23% were surgical patients (Table 1). Patients spent a median 63.9 hours (IQR 26.7118.6) on the wards per admission and contributed a median of 3 paired observations (IQR 24) per day, with 91% of patients having at least 2 observations per day. A total of 417 (1.6%) general‐ward admissions resulted in death during the hospitalization, with 354 mental‐status observations occurring within 24 hours of a death. In addition, 26,618 (99.9%) admissions had at least 1 paired mental‐status observation within the last 24 hours of their ward stay.

Baseline Characteristics of Hospital Admissions
  • NOTE: Characteristics are stratified at the hospital admission level. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; MEWS, Modified Early Warning Score; n, number of observations; SD, standard deviation.

Total no. of admissions26,873
Total no. of unique patients17,660
Age, y, mean (SD)57 (17)
Female sex, n (%)14,293 (53)
Race, n (%) 
White10,516 (39)
Black12,580 (47)
Other/unknown3,777 (14)
Admission MEWS, median (IQR)1 (11)
Days on ward, median (IQR)5 (310)
Observations per person, per day, median (IQR)3 (24)
Underwent surgery during hospitalization, n (%)6,141 (23)
Deaths, n (%)417 (1.6)

AVPU was moderately correlated with GCS (Spearman's =0.56) (Figure 1a) and weakly correlated with RASS (Spearman's =0.28) (Figure 1b). GCS scores were also weakly correlated to RASS (Spearman's =0.13, P<0.001). Notably, AVPU mapped to distinct levels of GCS, with Alert associated with a median GCS total score of 15, Voice a score of 12, Pain a score of 8, and Unresponsive a score of 5. Abnormal mental‐status scores on any scale were associated with significantly higher odds of death within 24 hours than normal mental‐status scores (Table 2). This association was consistent within the 3 subscales of GCS and for scores in both the sedation (<0) and agitation (>0) ranges of RASS.

Figure 1
Score correlations between (1a) AVPU and GCS total, and between (1b) AVPU and RASS. Boxes indicate interquartile range (25th to 75th percentiles), whiskers indicate 5th to 95th percentiles, and diamonds indicate median. Each correlation is significant at P < 0.001. Abbreviations: AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.
Odds of Mortality Within 24 Hours of an Abnormal Mental‐Status Score
Mental‐status ScoreObservations, n (%)Odds Ratio for Mortality (95% CI)
  • NOTE: Odds ratios, with 95% CIs, comparing the probability of mortality within 24 hours of an abnormal mental‐status score to the probability of mortality within 24 hours of a normal mental‐status score (Reference). All calculations control for clustering of observations within the same admission. All odds ratios were significant at P<0.001. Abbreviations: AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; CI, confidence interval; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; n, number of observations; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.

GCS Eye (AVPU)  
4 (alert)289,857 (98)Reference
<4 (not alert)6,117 (2)33.8 (23.947.9)
GCS Verbal  
5277,862 (94)Reference
411,258 (4)4.7 (2.87.9)
<46,854 (2)52.7 (38.073.2)
GCS Motor  
6287,441 (97)Reference
<68,533 (3)41.8 (30.756.9)
GCS total  
15276,042 (93)Reference
13, 1412,437 (4)5.2 (3.38.3)
<137,495 (3)55.5 (40.077.1)
RASS  
>06,867 (2)8.5 (5.613.0)
0275,708 (93)Reference
<013,339 (5)25.8 (19.234.6)

AVPU was the least accurate predictor of mortality (AUC 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.710.76]), whereas simultaneous use of GCS and RASS was the most accurate predictor (AUC 0.85 [95% CI: 0.820.87] (Figure 2). The accuracies of GCS and RASS were not significantly different from one another in the total study population (AUC 0.80 [95% CI: 0.770.83] and 0.82 [0.790.84], respectively, P=0.13). Ten‐fold cross‐validation to estimate the internal validity of the RASS model resulted in a lower AUC (0.78 [95% CI: 0.750.81]) for RASS as a predictor of 24‐hour mortality. Subgroup analysis indicated that RASS was more accurate than GCS in younger patients (<57 years old) and in surgical patients (Figure 3).

Figure 2
Predictive accuracies of mental‐status scales (and GCS subscales) for mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation (*P < 0.001). AUC with whiskers indicating 95% confidence intervals for predicting mortality occurring within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation. AUCs are shown for each mental‐status scale, for the combination of GCS and RASS, and for the 3 subscales of the GCS. Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.
Figure 3
Predictive accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for mortality within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation. Subgroup analysis is based on age and surgical status (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001). AUC with whiskers indicating 95% CI for predicting mortality occurring within 24 hours of a mental‐status observation, analyzed at the observation level, and stratified by patient age (below or greater than or equal to the median age of 57 years) and surgical status (patient with surgery during hospitalization or medical patient only). Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AVPU, Alert‐Voice‐Pain‐Unresponsive; GCS, Glascow Coma Scale; RASS, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale.

Removal of the 255 admissions missing a paired mental‐status observation within the last 24 hours of their ward stay resulted in no change in the AUC values. A sensitivity analysis for prediction of a combined secondary outcome of 24‐hour intensive care unit ICU transfer or cardiac arrest yielded lower AUCs for each mental‐status scale, with no change in the association among scales.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting mortality in the general‐ward setting. Similar to McNarry and Goldhill, we demonstrated that AVPU scores mapped to distinct levels of GCS. Although our study reports the same median GCS scores of 15 and 8 for AVPU levels of Alert and Pain, respectively, we indicate slightly lower corresponding median GCS scores for AVPU scores of Voice (12 vs 13) and Unresponsive (5 vs 6) than their previous work.[21] We found that AVPU was the least accurate predictor of mortality within 24 hours of an observation, and the combination of GCS and RASS was the most accurate. RASS was at least as accurate a predictor for 24‐hour mortality in comparison to GCS total in the overall study population. However, the RASS score was the most accurate individual score in surgical and younger patients. These findings suggest that changing from the commonly used AVPU scale to the RASS and/or GCS would improve the prognostic ability of mental‐status assessments on the general wards.

Buist and colleagues have previously demonstrated altered mental status to be one of the strongest predictors of death on the wards. In that study, a GCS score of 3 and a decrease in GCS score by more than 2 points were independently associated with mortality (odds ratio 6.1 [95% CI: 3.111.8] and 5.5 [95% CI: 2.611.9], respectively).[22] We have also previously shown that after adjusting for vital signs, being unresponsive to pain was associated with a 4.5‐fold increase in the odds of death within 24 hours,[23]whereas Subbe and colleagues showed a relative risk ratio of 5.2 (95% CI: 1.518.1) for the combined endpoint of cardiac arrest, death at 60 days, or admission to the intensive care/high dependency unit.[19] In the current study, the magnitude of these associations was even stronger, with a GCS score <13 correlating with a 55‐fold increase in the odds of death, compared to a normal GCS, and not being alert being associated with a 33.8‐fold increase in the odds of death. This difference in magnitude is likely a product of the univariate nature of the current analysis, compared to both the Buist et al. and Churpek et al. studies, which adjusted for vital signs, thereby lessening the impact of any single predictor. Because this study was designed to compare mental‐status variables to one another for future model inclusion, and all the analyses were paired, confounding by additional predictors of death was not a concern.

One of the potential strengths of RASS over GCS and AVPU is its ability to measure agitation levels, in addition to depressed mentation, a feature that has been shown to be present in up to 60% of delirium episodes.[24] This may also explain why RASS was the most accurate predictor of mortality in our subset of younger patients and surgical patients, because hyperactive delirium is more common in younger and healthier patients, which surgical patients tend to be as compared to medical patients.[25, 26] In this study, we found negative RASS scores portending a worse prognosis than positive ones, which supports previous findings that hypoactive delirium had a higher association with mortality than hyperactive delirium at 6 months (hazard ratio 1.90 vs 1.37) and at 1 year (hazard ratio 1.60 vs 1.30) in elderly patients at postacute‐care facilities in 2 separate studies.[27, 28] However, a study of patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture found that patients with hyperactive delirium were more likely to die or be placed in a nursing home at 1 month follow‐up when compared to patients with purely hypoactive delirium (79% vs 32%, P=0.003).[29]

We found the assessment of RASS and GCS by ward nurses to be highly feasible. During the study period, nurses assessed mental status with the GCS and RASS scales at least once per 12‐hour shift in 91% of patients. GCS has been shown to be reliably and accurately recorded by experienced nurses (reliability coefficient=0.944 with 96.4% agreement with expert ratings).[30] RASS can take <30 seconds to administer, and in previous studies of the ICU setting has been shown to have over 94% nurse compliance for administration,[31] and good inter‐rater reliability (weighted kappa 0.66 and 0.89, respectively).[31, 32] Further, in a prior survey of 55 critical care nurses, 82% agreed that RASS was easy to score and clinically relevant.[31]

This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in a single academic institution, which may limit generalizability to other hospitals. Second, baseline cognition and comorbidities were not available in the dataset, so we were unable to conduct additional subgroup analyses by these categories. However, we used age and hospital admission type as proxies. Third, the AVPU scores in this study were extracted from the Eye subset of the GCS scale, as AVPU was not directly assessed on our wards during the study period. Clinical assessment of mental status on the AVPU scale notes the presence of any active patient response (eg, eye opening, grunting, moaning, movement) to increasingly noxious stimuli. As such, our adaptation of AVPU using only eye‐opening criteria may underestimate the true number of patients correctly classified as alert, or responding to vocal/painful stimuli. However, a sensitivity analysis comparing directly assessed AVPU during a 3‐year period prior to the study implementation at our institution, and AVPU derived from the GCS Eye subscale for the study period, indicated no difference in predictive value for 24‐hour mortality. Fourth, we did not perform trend analyses for change from baseline mental status or evolution of AMS, which may more accurately predict 24‐hour mortality than discrete mental‐status observations. Finally, the 3 scales we compared differ in length, which may bias the AUC against AVPU, a 4‐point scale with a trapezoidal ROC curve compared to the smoother curve generated by the 15‐point GCS scale, for example. However, the lack of discrimination of the AVPU is the likely source of its lesser accuracy.

CONCLUSION

In the general‐ward setting, routine collection of GCS and RASS is feasible, and both are significantly more accurate for predicting mortality than the more commonly used AVPU scale. In addition, the combination of GCS and RASS has greater accuracy than any of the 3 individual scales. RASS may be particularly beneficial in the assessment of younger and/or surgical patients. Routine documentation and tracking of GCS and/or RASS by nurses may improve the detection of clinical deterioration in general‐ward patients. In addition, future early‐warning scores may benefit from the inclusion of GCS and/or RASS in lieu of AVPU.

Disclosures

Drs. Churpek and Edelson have a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. Dr. Churpek is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08 HL121080). Dr. Edelson has received research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23 HL097157), Philips (Andover, MA), the American Heart Association (Dallas, TX), Laerdal Medical (Stavanger, Norway), and Early Sense (Tel Aviv, Israel). She has ownership interest in Quant HC (Chicago, IL), which is developing products for risk stratification of hospitalized patients. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

References
  1. Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2004;291(14):17531762.
  2. Pompei P, Foreman M, Rudberg MA, Inouye SK, Braund V, Cassel CK. Delirium in hospitalized older persons: outcomes and predictors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(8):809815.
  3. Siddiqi N, House AO, Holmes JD. Occurrence and outcome of delirium in medical in‐patients: a systematic literature review. Age Ageing. 2006;35(4):350364.
  4. Levkoff SE, Evans DA, Liptzin B, et al. Delirium. The occurrence and persistence of symptoms among elderly hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(2):334340.
  5. Dyer CB, Ashton CM, Teasdale TA. Postoperative delirium. A review of 80 primary data‐collection studies. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(5):461465.
  6. Inouye SK, Foreman MD, Mion LC, Katz KH, Cooney LM Nurses' recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(20):24672473.
  7. Armstrong SC, Cozza KL, Watanabe KS. The misdiagnosis of delirium. Psychosomatics. 1997;38(5):433439.
  8. Ely EW, Stephens RK, Jackson JC, et al. Current opinions regarding the importance, diagnosis, and management of delirium in the intensive care unit: a survey of 912 healthcare professionals. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(1):106112.
  9. Farrell KR, Ganzini L. Misdiagnosing delirium as depression in medically ill elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(22):24592464.
  10. Simpson CJ. Doctors and nurses use of the word confused. Br J Psychiatry. 1984;145:441443.
  11. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):13381344.
  12. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1976;34(1–4):4555.
  13. Bastos PG, Sun X, Wagner DP, Wu AW, Knaus WA. Glasgow Coma Scale score in the evaluation of outcome in the intensive care unit: findings from the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III study. Crit Care Med. 1993;21(10):14591465.
  14. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18(4):379384.
  15. Menegazzi JJ, Davis EA, Sucov AN, Paris PM. Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale when used by emergency physicians and paramedics. J Trauma. 1993;34(1):4648.
  16. Alexander RH, Proctor HJ; American College of Surgeons. Committee on Trauma. Advanced Trauma Life Support Program For Physicians: ATLS. 5th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 1993.
  17. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. Review and performance evaluation of aggregate weighted 'track and trigger' systems. Resuscitation. 2008;77(2):170179.
  18. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI, Higgins B. A review, and performance evaluation, of single‐parameter “track and trigger” systems. Resuscitation. 2008;79(1):1121.
  19. Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, Gemmel L. Validation of a modified Early Warning score in medical admissions. QJM. 2001;94(10):521526.
  20. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke‐Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837845.
  21. McNarry AF, Goldhill DR. Simple bedside assessment of level of consciousness: comparison of two simple assessment scales with the Glascow Coma Scale. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(1):3437.
  22. Buist M, Bernard S, Nguyen TV, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in‐hospital mortality: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137141.
  23. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Edelson DP. Predicting clinical deterioration in the hospital: the impact of outcome selection. Resuscitation. 2013;84(5):564568.
  24. Peterson JF, Pun BT, Dittus RS, et al. Delirium and its motoric subtypes: a study of 614 critically ill patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(3):479484.
  25. Angles EM, Robinson TN, Biffl WL, et al. Risk factors for delirium after major trauma. Am J Surg. 2008;196(6):864869.
  26. Meagher DJ, O'Hanlon D, O'Mahony E, Casey PR, Trzepacz PT. Relationship between symptoms and motoric subtype of delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2000;12(1):5156.
  27. Yang FM, Marcantonio ER, Inouye SK, et al. Phenomenological subtypes of delirium in older persons: patterns, prevalence, and prognosis. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(3):248254.
  28. Kiely DK, Jones RN, Bergmann MA, Marcantonio ER. Association between psychomotor activity delirium subtypes and mortality among newly admitted post‐acute facility patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62(2):174179.
  29. Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, Resnick NM. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850857.
  30. Rowley G, Fielding K. Reliability and accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Scale with experienced and inexperienced users. Lancet. 1991;337(8740):535538.
  31. Pun BT, Gordon SM, Peterson JF, et al. Large‐scale implementation of sedation and delirium monitoring in the intensive care unit: a report from two medical centers. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):11991205.
  32. Vasilevskis EE, Morandi A, Boehm L, et al. Delirium and sedation recognition using validated instruments: reliability of bedside intensive care unit nursing assessments from 2007 to 2010. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(suppl 2):S249S255.
References
  1. Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2004;291(14):17531762.
  2. Pompei P, Foreman M, Rudberg MA, Inouye SK, Braund V, Cassel CK. Delirium in hospitalized older persons: outcomes and predictors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(8):809815.
  3. Siddiqi N, House AO, Holmes JD. Occurrence and outcome of delirium in medical in‐patients: a systematic literature review. Age Ageing. 2006;35(4):350364.
  4. Levkoff SE, Evans DA, Liptzin B, et al. Delirium. The occurrence and persistence of symptoms among elderly hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(2):334340.
  5. Dyer CB, Ashton CM, Teasdale TA. Postoperative delirium. A review of 80 primary data‐collection studies. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(5):461465.
  6. Inouye SK, Foreman MD, Mion LC, Katz KH, Cooney LM Nurses' recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(20):24672473.
  7. Armstrong SC, Cozza KL, Watanabe KS. The misdiagnosis of delirium. Psychosomatics. 1997;38(5):433439.
  8. Ely EW, Stephens RK, Jackson JC, et al. Current opinions regarding the importance, diagnosis, and management of delirium in the intensive care unit: a survey of 912 healthcare professionals. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(1):106112.
  9. Farrell KR, Ganzini L. Misdiagnosing delirium as depression in medically ill elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(22):24592464.
  10. Simpson CJ. Doctors and nurses use of the word confused. Br J Psychiatry. 1984;145:441443.
  11. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):13381344.
  12. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1976;34(1–4):4555.
  13. Bastos PG, Sun X, Wagner DP, Wu AW, Knaus WA. Glasgow Coma Scale score in the evaluation of outcome in the intensive care unit: findings from the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III study. Crit Care Med. 1993;21(10):14591465.
  14. Holdgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18(4):379384.
  15. Menegazzi JJ, Davis EA, Sucov AN, Paris PM. Reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale when used by emergency physicians and paramedics. J Trauma. 1993;34(1):4648.
  16. Alexander RH, Proctor HJ; American College of Surgeons. Committee on Trauma. Advanced Trauma Life Support Program For Physicians: ATLS. 5th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 1993.
  17. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. Review and performance evaluation of aggregate weighted 'track and trigger' systems. Resuscitation. 2008;77(2):170179.
  18. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI, Higgins B. A review, and performance evaluation, of single‐parameter “track and trigger” systems. Resuscitation. 2008;79(1):1121.
  19. Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, Gemmel L. Validation of a modified Early Warning score in medical admissions. QJM. 2001;94(10):521526.
  20. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke‐Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837845.
  21. McNarry AF, Goldhill DR. Simple bedside assessment of level of consciousness: comparison of two simple assessment scales with the Glascow Coma Scale. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(1):3437.
  22. Buist M, Bernard S, Nguyen TV, Moore G, Anderson J. Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in‐hospital mortality: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(2):137141.
  23. Churpek MM, Yuen TC, Edelson DP. Predicting clinical deterioration in the hospital: the impact of outcome selection. Resuscitation. 2013;84(5):564568.
  24. Peterson JF, Pun BT, Dittus RS, et al. Delirium and its motoric subtypes: a study of 614 critically ill patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(3):479484.
  25. Angles EM, Robinson TN, Biffl WL, et al. Risk factors for delirium after major trauma. Am J Surg. 2008;196(6):864869.
  26. Meagher DJ, O'Hanlon D, O'Mahony E, Casey PR, Trzepacz PT. Relationship between symptoms and motoric subtype of delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2000;12(1):5156.
  27. Yang FM, Marcantonio ER, Inouye SK, et al. Phenomenological subtypes of delirium in older persons: patterns, prevalence, and prognosis. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(3):248254.
  28. Kiely DK, Jones RN, Bergmann MA, Marcantonio ER. Association between psychomotor activity delirium subtypes and mortality among newly admitted post‐acute facility patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62(2):174179.
  29. Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, Resnick NM. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850857.
  30. Rowley G, Fielding K. Reliability and accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Scale with experienced and inexperienced users. Lancet. 1991;337(8740):535538.
  31. Pun BT, Gordon SM, Peterson JF, et al. Large‐scale implementation of sedation and delirium monitoring in the intensive care unit: a report from two medical centers. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):11991205.
  32. Vasilevskis EE, Morandi A, Boehm L, et al. Delirium and sedation recognition using validated instruments: reliability of bedside intensive care unit nursing assessments from 2007 to 2010. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(suppl 2):S249S255.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(10)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(10)
Page Number
658-663
Page Number
658-663
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Comparison of mental‐status scales for predicting mortality on the general wards
Display Headline
Comparison of mental‐status scales for predicting mortality on the general wards
Sections
Article Source

© 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Dana P. Edelson, MD, Section of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Avenue, MC 5000, Chicago, IL 60637; Telephone: 773‐834‐2191; Fax: 773‐795‐7398; E‐mail: dperes@uchicago.edu
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files